I started a document that indicates all the corrections I know with the intention of creating a sticker sheet such that the corrections could be "stickered" over top of the errors in the Campaign Book. However, I didn't have the graphical expertise to create all the images required and it sits half complete. If you'd like the document, send me a private message with your e-mail address and I'll forward the document and images I have.

That's what I did. Used mailing labels and stuck them on the pages so I have the ready reference in the right spot. Good idea if I don't say so myself.

Any chance of DoW putting all the errata on a printable sheet we could download?
Please

Just some considerations about this scenario:
-Bunkers are not really bunkers; they represent artillery turrets, so nobody can use them as bunkers.
-Turrets do block LOS.
-Turrets are objectives only for the Axis player.
-For the Allies, It is not possible to bring a tank reinforcement unit onto the top of the fort.
-No units can exit the top of the fort, so a flag will mean a figure loss if there is no retreat path.
-No reserve unit reinforcement for the Axis player as their baseline is impassable terrain.
-All hexes inside the hills are at the same level (height) as the hills since hills represent the walls of the fort, and fortress hexes are also effectively at the same level.

Rules misprint
p.46 - Heavy Tank Track
The example is wrong - the title should be "The Crossing of the Meuse" and the text should read "The Axis player managed to destroy 4 Heavy Tank units. As a consequence, he receives 3 additional Victory Points."

That's actually a smaller list of mistakes than I thought it would be based on initial complaints...and hopfully the CB#2 errata is even smaller! By the time CB#4 comes out (here's hoping) there won't be any mistakes at all.

That's actually a smaller list of mistakes than I thought it would be based on initial complaints...and hopfully the CB#2 errata is even smaller! By the time CB#4 comes out (here's hoping) there won't be any mistakes at all.

There may be more even if you survey this thread, which I would DO CAREFULLY if I was composing a document. I just have the answers for the ITEMS I personally researched listed here. So it is not as simple as it seems. I am sure there were more questions related to how to play certain scenarios.

In fact, the Allied green arrow between "Camouflaged in Monthermé" and "De Gaulle to the Rescue" should be red.
The German green and red arrow are not reversed however.

(It is also written in the "Camouflaged in Monthermé" box that if Allies win you must go to "Breakout at Sedan".)
The idea is that Germans have to cross the Meuse to advance. If they do not cross the river, their attack cannot lead to victory. That was a key point of the German attack.

It has been brought to my attention that the Flanking Caen campaign had an omission in the final editing. It is possible for the Allies to win Withdrawal from Hill 112 (effectively ending the campaign) yet lose the campaign. This means that the Axis has won the campaign but it's not clear where the Grand Campaign goes after this.

The Axis Campaign box should read - "If you win the Campaign after Withdrawal from Hill 112 or Hill 112"
The Grand Campaign would move to The Breakout if the Axis wins the campaign regardless of the scenario.

Flanking Caen Campaign - Errata Sat, 21 March 2009 13:58
Somehow this got overlooked in the final edit (it happens).
Fortunately it's a simple fix.
The end Axis campaign box should read....
"If you win the Campaign after Withdrawal from Hill 112 or Hill 112"

Basically it would've covered off the possible ending of the Allies winning Withdrawal from Hill 112 but end up losing the Campaign.

is there any possibility that DOW will reprint the book?
because i've read on different fora that a lot of people would have this book.

As fans of the game we can always hope that they will reprint the book but DoW has not said anything about plans to do this. They don't usually tell us what their plans are very far in advance, but if they decide to reprint the book I'm sure lots of people will be happy to get a copy!

In "The Breakout" campaign, which version of 'Counter-Attack on Mortain' is used?

The AIr Pack version is 6 VP. The base game version is 4 VP.

If you look at p. 24 or p.25 in CB#1 you will see directly adjacent to the scenario title "Counter-Attack on Mortain" two page numbers listed. One page number is for the Original Memoir'44 Owners Manual and the other is for the Air Pack Instruction Manual. What I gather from this, is that is up to the folks playing the scenarios to decide which one they want to use as both possibilities are listed. You see the same situation on these same pages for the listing for "Operation Cobra".

You see this same sitution repeated in Barbarossa Center on CB#1 ps.84-86.
So again I think that DOW is just giving you alternatives, should you decide to use Air rules. Will it make a difference in the final outcome? Possibly, but isn't it about playing, experimenting and having fun.

It's nice to publish corrections but what about the rest of us, those who can't get the first Campaign book at all? Pretty frustrating. It should be available online if it's not going to be in print again.

It's nice to publish corrections but what about the rest of us, those who can't get the first Campaign book at all? Pretty frustrating. It should be available online if it's not going to be in print again.

You can purchase the PDF version at the Days of Wonder store on their website.

It's nice to publish corrections but what about the rest of us, those who can't get the first Campaign book at all? Pretty frustrating. It should be available online if it's not going to be in print again.

You can purchase the PDF version at the Days of Wonder store on their website.

Yep, and it's only $15 for an amazing addition to the game system with tons of new scenarios and really fun campaigns!! You can find it over here:

Having just finished the Fall Geld grand campaign, here are a few points that I'm not entirely clear about (with apologies for some things that are not quite directly related to the CB1 errata).

Grand campaign
Heavy Tank Track: the rule mentions "enemy heavy tank units" and "Allied armor unit".
1. The Crossing of the Meuse campaign has an "armor unit [that] represents an AMD Panhard-178 unit (armored cars)" in the Combats in Stonne scenario. The grand campaign ends with the Dunkirk scenario which features a British tank unit. Do these units count on the Heavy Tank Track (armored car is not an enemy tank, but it is an armor unit; the Armor Track specifically points out to French tanks)? - answered
2. The Panzer/Heavy Tank tracks shows up in three out of four campaigns: do destroyed armor units add up on said tracks for the entire grand campaign or do they only count for each campaign only? - answeredGeneral question
Does the Position Control rule still applies to the following situation?
Tank unit close assaults and eliminates enemy unit (which should count as final victory medal, but discards it), makes an Armor Overrun action, close assaults and eliminates a second enemy unit (which again should count as final victory medal, but again discards it) stationed on a Temporary Medal Objective, Takes Ground as a final action and claims the objective medal thereby ending the game. - answered

Dunkirk scenario
1. Air Rules don't apply at all, so no Air Sortie cards, only regular Air Power and maybe (as luck would have it) AP/AS tokens, correct? I'm only asking since it seems a bit odd that in a documented historical situation where German ground forces were ordered to stop so that the Luftwaffe could finish the job, this scenario actually doesn't use the Air Rules (which were an option during the entire Unternehmen Fall Gelb campaign). Plus there's the fact that a lot of the Japanese scenarios in CB2 make special notes of Air Rules not being in effect, which is puzzling since not mentioning this (as is the case, presumably, in Dunkirk) would've sent the same message... - answered
2. If an infantry unit is ordered and moves two hexes, can it board an LC with its second move? This is to clarify things because the scenario notes seem to imply that in order for an unit to board the LC, being adjacent to it prior to boarding is a must. - answered
3. When does the LC returns to its starting position: the same turn it leaves the map when evacuating an unit or at the beginning of the next Allied turn? Is this return a default action or does the LC still needs to be ordered so as to enter the map? - answered

And before moving on to Barbarossa, I need some clarifications.

1. Victory Events Rolls are cumulative between the three campaign and the two phases, correct?Example 1: Axis player starts in Barbarossa Center, wins two battles, moves to South, wins first battle; prior to playing the second center scenario, he rolls 2 + 3 = 5 dice.
Example 2: Having finished the first phase with 4 wins and two losses, Axis player rolls at the start of the second phase 2 + 4 = 6 dice, while Allied player rols 2 + 2 = 4 dice. - answered
2. There are three scenarios (Bug River, Smolensk and Russian Breakout) where the Axis player must win by a difference of 2/3 more medals, otherwise the Allied player wins. If the Axis player wins by a minimal margin, does this means that the medals still counts on the campaign sheet, but the campaign moves to the next scenario as if the Allied player won the scenario instead? - answered
3. As a final note, is the Russian grand campaign supposed to become more and more punishing for the Germans even if they win all the scenarios? - answered

Having just finished the Fall Geld grand campaign, here are a few points that I'm not entirely clear about (with apologies for some things that are not quite directly related to the CB1

General question
Does the Position Control rule still applies to the following situation?
Tank unit close assaults and eliminates enemy unit (which should count as final victory medal, but discards it), makes an Armor Overrun action, close assaults and eliminates a second enemy unit (which again should count as final victory medal, but again discards it) stationed on a Temporary Medal Objective, Takes Ground as a final action and claims the objective medal thereby ending the game.

It is quite obvious from your question that you have not clearly read the POSITION CONTROL RULE (CB2 p.12):

Quote:

When Position control rules are in effect, a player that eliminates an enemy unit in close assault may choose to discard the medal obtained for eliminating that unit and Take Ground instead. Such a move is only permitted if the enemy unit was on an objective medal and taking this objective ends the game.

Discarding a game ending unit (medal) is only permitted if the unit you discarded was on an objective hex and you are able to take ground and immediately capture the objective hex. You are not permitted to arbitrarily discard medals until you get the one you want. The unit medal must be on the same hex with an objective medal.

It is quite obvious from your question that you have not clearly read the POSITION CONTROL RULE (CB2 p.12)

Could've been more nicely put, but thanks anyway for the answer.

For regular posters like Stevens, it's tough to have someone ask so many questions but not have thoroughly checked the rules and forums first. I imagine you just misread the rule (or missed it), but to avoid future confusion it's always best to check all the sources of clarification before posting a new question (just to make sure it hasn't already been answered). Here are the best steps to go through (in my opinion):

1) Read and reread the rules in question. Take the rules literally and don't assume something was intended if it isn't written.

2) Look up the question in the Official FAQ to see if this is a common misunderstanding or confusion. If you're wondering something, there's a good chance someone else has wondered it as well.

3) Check the forums so see if anyone else has posted the same question. You can do a Key Word search to speed things up, but try several possible key words in case someone posted it under a different wording than what you're thinking. This is a very international community, so people might use different terms for something.

4) After exhausting the other three steps, then post the question online.

This process will often help remove a lot of confusion and you may very well find an answer before you get to step 4.

All good advice, but you seem to be thinking I'm just discovering the Internet or something. I already did what you said; I always do so before posting something. I even discussed some of the questions with other friends and they're as baffled as I am. If I posted it means that I didn't find any answers to it. I also posted in dedicated threads and moved here the questions only because you suggested so.
Also the rules of the game are very far from being as clear as you think, which is why I need to make sure of some things. I'm a very thorough reader when it comes to game rules, but when someone uses "may" instead of "must", meaning becomes very muddled indeed.
All in all, some simple answers would be far less time-consuming than discussing what/where/how to post. Unless I'm deeply mistaken about the purpose of a forum, that is.

It is quite obvious from your question that you have not clearly read the POSITION CONTROL RULE (CB2 p.12)

Could've been more nicely put, but thanks anyway for the answer.

I apologize for the tone of my message.

I should know by now that not everyone has poured over and debated the rules as much as I and some other senior members have.

I have a question and I mean this with no ill will when I ask if English is your first language? I am thinking that some of your not seeing the rules clearly has more to do with nuances in the written word. This is a common enough situation and has come up many times between rule discussions on the English vs. French forums.

Rork wrote on Mon, 09 December 2013 03:57

Also the rules of the game are very far from being as clear as you think, which is why I need to make sure of some things. I'm a very thorough reader when it comes to game rules, but when someone uses "may" instead of "must", meaning becomes very muddled indeed.

For instance "must" means that there is no variation or choice in what you can do,
"may" means that you have options and can choose between those options.

No problemo.
No, English isn't my first language, but I did (and still do) translation work (mostly fiction) and I like to think I'm good with nuances - hence the may/must example. Problem is game rules shouldn't deal in nuances, but in clear exposition so as to keep confusion to a minimum and clarity to a maximum.
In Memoir there's a tendency of throwing unnecessary words around or leaving things unspoken or even using wrong words (imho), hence my questions/comments, some of them needing confirmations or "official" rulings.
If it helps for the answers, I can rephrase my questions so that a simple yes/no should do the trick (even though I'd love to get into the reasoning for adopting such and such rule).

It is quite obvious from your question that you have not clearly read the POSITION CONTROL RULE (CB2 p.12)

Could've been more nicely put, but thanks anyway for the answer.

Please, apologise Stevens. He is such a nice community member always willing to help newbies aroundish! He had helped me alot in the past when I first came.

Obviously, he intended no harm at all when answered the question.

Cheers,
Jaime aka Almilcar

Yes, you are exactly correct in saying that my response had a rude tone. And there it is now for all to see. Just so you know, I did write RORK a message via PM to apologize. Also if you look just below his response to me, you will see that I did offer a conciliatory response:

stevens wrote on Mon, 09 December 2013 07:44

Rork wrote on Sun, 08 December 2013 17:07

stevens wrote on Sun, 08 December 2013 20:31

It is quite obvious from your question that you have not clearly read the POSITION CONTROL RULE (CB2 p.12)

Could've been more nicely put, but thanks anyway for the answer.

I apologize for the tone of my message.

I should know by now that not everyone has poured over and debated the rules as much as I and some other senior members have.

I have a question and I mean this with no ill will when I ask if English is your first language? I am thinking that some of your not seeing the rules clearly has more to do with nuances in the written word. This is a common enough situation and has come up many times between rule discussions on the English vs. French forums.

Rork wrote on Mon, 09 December 2013 03:57

Also the rules of the game are very far from being as clear as you think, which is why I need to make sure of some things. I'm a very thorough reader when it comes to game rules, but when someone uses "may" instead of "must", meaning becomes very muddled indeed.

For instance "must" means that there is no variation or choice in what you can do,
"may" means that you have options and can choose between those options.

I apologize to the entire forum for exhibiting frustration in an unkind way with my terse retort to RORK. I promise to not answer posts in the future when in a state of frustration. RORK himself was not personally the cause of my frustration or my error.

It has always been my goal to be helpful and not rude. I am sorry I failed on this point on this occasion. Thanks always for your kind regards on my behalf.

I saw that Ivanovskoye Bridgehead is the next scenario in our Vassal ladder tournament. There's one paragraph in the rules that is subject to interpretation.

Quote:

Air rules are optional: If used, give the Allied player both Air Sortie cards at game start. The Allied player is also able to conduct Air Strikes (Actions 3 - Air Strikes & Blitz) while at least one Allied unit is in the line of sight of the Supply Depot or Ivanovskoye.

It seems like if Air Rules are used then both the Air Sortie cards go to Allies as well as the Allies can also conduct Air Strikes.
So if Air Rules are not used then Allies don't get Air Strikes?

There's another scenario (in the Air Pack) that is worded almost identically: Breakout at Klin
The previous version from Eastern Front doesn't have Allied Air Strikes, so that's suggestive that No Air Rules = No Air Strikes for both scenarios.
(Note: the original has Blitz=Air Strikes for the Axis.)

I interpret the Air rules paragraph for Ivanovskoye Bridgehead differently.

Whenever a scenario uses Blitz rules, the presence or absence of Air rules merely determines whether or not the air strikes use planes. So my reading is that Russian Air Strikes are available whether or not Air rules are used, and they simply wanted to put both notes into a single paragraph about Air.

While JFK raises a good point with the Klin example, the circumstances are different: That scenario was part of the Eastern Front expansion, before Air rules came out. A number of scenarios were changed in the Air Pack version, and, as I recall, the great majority of those changes favored the disadvantaged side.

Air rules are optional: If used, give the Allied player both Air Sortie cards at game start. The Allied player is also able to conduct Air Strikes (Actions 3 - Air Strikes & Blitz) while at least one Allied unit is in the line of sight of the Supply Depot or Ivanovskoye.

It seems like if Air Rules are used then both the Air Sortie cards go to Allies as well as the Allies can also conduct Air Strikes.
So if Air Rules are not used then Allies don't get Air Strikes?

My reading of it: with Air rules and quoted condition active, the Allied player can conduct Air Strikes as per the Blitz rules. If no Air rules are used, then the Allied player only benefits from the Air Power card.

I interpret the Air rules paragraph for Ivanovskoye Bridgehead differently.

Whenever a scenario uses Blitz rules, the presence or absence of Air rules merely determines whether or not the air strikes use planes. So my reading is that Russian Air Strikes are available whether or not Air rules are used, and they simply wanted to put both notes into a single paragraph about Air.

I have to agree with Sam here.

Air Rules may be used.

If they are not, then the Allies can use Recon cards as if they were Air Power cards if they meet the LOS conditions and of course attack at least one unit in the same section as listed on the used Recon card.

As the Air rules (where Recons may be used as Air Sortie equivalents) and the Blitz Air Strike rules (where Recons can be played like Air Power) really do not relate to each other and thus are not one and the same.

As the Air rules (where Recons may be used as Air Sortie equivalents) and the Blitz Air Strike rules (where Recons can be played like Air Power) really do not relate to each other and thus are not one and the same.

You're right, but since categories that have no relation to each other were forcefully linked in meaning by using them in the same paragraph, confusion would be dispelled by something like this:

The Allied player is able to conduct Air Strikes (Actions 3 - Air Strikes & Blitz) while at least one Allied unit is in the line of sight of the Supply Depot or Ivanovskoye.
Air rules are optional: If used, give the Allied player both Air Sortie cards at game start.

As the Air rules (where Recons may be used as Air Sortie equivalents) and the Blitz Air Strike rules (where Recons can be played like Air Power) really do not relate to each other and thus are not one and the same.

You're right, but since categories that have no relation to each other were forcefully linked in meaning by using them in the same paragraph, confusion would be dispelled by something like this:

The Allied player is able to conduct Air Strikes (Actions 3 - Air Strikes & Blitz) while at least one Allied unit is in the line of sight of the Supply Depot or Ivanovskoye.
Air rules are optional: If used, give the Allied player both Air Sortie cards at game start.

I do agree with you on that. The notes on this could have been presented in a clearer fashion.

Lipovec and Sea of Azov have Blitz Rules in one paragraph and Air Rules in another (one optional). But there doesn't seem to be anything in there worded like the scenario we're discussing, Ivanovskoye Bridgehead.

Air rules are optional : If used, the Allied player may call in Air Strikes (Actions 3 - Air Strikes & Blitz) from P-38's (Airplanes 2 - Lockheed P-38 Lightning) or P-40's (Airplanes 1 - Curtiss P-40 Warhawk). The Air Sortie cards are set aside and not used in this mission.

Even if Air Rules are not used, the Allied player may still call in Air Strikes (Actions 3 - Air Strikes & Blitz).

That's a clear statement for Allied Air Strikes with or without Air Rules. Therefore, if a scenario is from the same book, and not worded like this, then it follows that the Air Strikes were linked to Air Rules.

Lipovec and Sea of Azov have Blitz Rules in one paragraph and Air Rules in another (one optional). But there doesn't seem to be anything in there worded like the scenario we're discussing, Ivanovskoye Bridgehead.

Air rules are optional : If used, the Allied player may call in Air Strikes (Actions 3 - Air Strikes & Blitz) from P-38's (Airplanes 2 - Lockheed P-38 Lightning) or P-40's (Airplanes 1 - Curtiss P-40 Warhawk). The Air Sortie cards are set aside and not used in this mission.

Even if Air Rules are not used, the Allied player may still call in Air Strikes (Actions 3 - Air Strikes & Blitz).

That's a clear statement for Allied Air Strikes with or without Air Rules. Therefore, if a scenario is from the same book, and not worded like this, then it follows that the Air Strikes were linked to Air Rules.

Yes, I fell into the same line of thinking as you sir and took the ALL or NOTHING approach to the utilization of Air Rules and Air Strikes for the Allies. So there is no clear consensus from the community on which is actually correct.

It's a long time since I've been here, and I'm pleased to see M44 still going strong.

With regard to the question at hand, I will give you my intention, but as ever if a consensus of opinion dislikes my reasoning I'm very happy for players to apply a different interpretation.

It's tricky having to accept that Air Rules are optional when they can play such a central role in a scenario. But of course, not everyone has the Air Pack, so that's the way it has to be. In this case, historically, the Soviets had massive air support, and the majority of the playtesting was done using Air Rules. My intention was that should Air Rules not be in effect, at least the Soviets would still have the Air Strikes rule to help out. So Tank Commander has it right, and Rork's suggested rewrite would be most helpful.